Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
RISKY RATING: Reducing the Over-reliance by using Credit ratings sensibly
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

RISKY RATING: Reducing the Over-reliance by using Credit ratings sensibly


Published on

Presented at the Scottish Financial Risk Academy's Inaugural Risk Colloquium on 4th Nov 2010 in Edinburgh. (Also published as CRA comment on the SEC website).

Presented at the Scottish Financial Risk Academy's Inaugural Risk Colloquium on 4th Nov 2010 in Edinburgh. (Also published as CRA comment on the SEC website).

Published in: Economy & Finance

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. RISKY RATINGS?Reducing Over-Reliance by usingthe Agencies’ analysis sensiblyMarkus KrebszInaugural Risk ColloquiumSFRA, 4 Nov 2010, Edinburgh 1
  • 2. ‘Lessons from the Financial Crisis’Lesson 1: Use of Credit Rating agencies (CRAs)Lesson 2: What are CRAs?Lesson 3: Inter-agency comparability?Lesson 4: Super Seniors (Intra-agency comparability)?Lesson 5: Definition of ‘Rating’Lesson 6: Captured risksLesson 7: Constructive criticismLesson 8: FailuresLesson 9: Risk of Over-Reliance & MitigantsLesson 10: Using CRAs’ analysis sensibly __________________________________________Appendix: Origin & History, Global CRAs, Rating scope, Rating actions & Process, Benefits, Limitations
  • 3. Lesson 1:Use of CreditRating agencies 3
  • 4. Q) Do you use Rating agencies (CRAs)?
  • 5. WHO uses ratings …Banks, Other Financial Institutions, Originators & Issuers,Investors, Financial Regulators, Other Rating agencies, etc. …WHY are ratings used…● Outsource analysis● Determine required economic and regulatory capital charges● Manage individual credit & portfolio risks● Feature as input into Structured Finance models (CDO2 etc.)
  • 6. Lesson 2:What are CRAs? 6
  • 7. Q) HOW many CRAs exist globally? 7
  • 8. 1) A.M. Best Company, Inc. 37) Istanbul International Rating Services, Inc.2) Agusto & Co. Ltd. 38) Japan Credit Rating Agency, Ltd. (JCR)3) Ahbor Rating 39) JCR Avrasya Derecelendime A.S.4) Apoyo & Asociados Internacionales S.A.C. 40) JCR-VIS Credit Rating Co. Ltd.5) Bank Watch Ratings S.A. 41) Kobirate Uluslararası Kredi Derecelendirme ve Kurumsal Yönetim6) BRC Investor Services S.A. Hizmetleri A.Ş.7) Calificadora de Riesgo, PCA 42) Korea Investors Service, Inc. (KIS)8) Capital Intelligence, Ltd. 43) Korea Ratings Corporation9) Caribbean Information & Credit Rating Services Ltd. (CariCRIS) 44) LACE Financial Corp,10) Central European Rating Agency (CERA) 45) Lanka Rating Agency, Ltd. (LRA)11) Chengxin International Credit Rating Co., Ltd. 46) Malaysian Rating Corporation Berhad (MARC)12) China Lianhe Credit Rating, Co. Ltd. 47) Mikuni & Co., Ltd.13) Clasificadora de Riesgo Humphreys, Ltda. 48) Moodys Investors Service14) Class y Asociados S.A. Clasificadora de Riesgo 49) National Information & Credit Evaluation, Inc. (NICE)15) CMC International, Ltd. 50) ONICRA Credit Rating Agency of India, Ltd.16) Companhia Portuguesa de Rating, SA (CPR) 51) P.T. Kasnic Credit Rating Indonesia -- Indonesia17) Credit Analysis & Research Ltd (CARE) 52) P.T. PEFINDO Credit Rating Indonesia18) "Credit-Rating": A Ukrainian rating agency 53) Pacific Credit Rating (PCR)Pakistan Credit Rating Agency, Ltd.19) Credit Rating Agency of Bangladesh, Ltd. (CRAB) 54) Philippine Rating Services, Corp. (PhilRatings)20) Credit Rating Information and Services, Ltd. (CRISL) 55) RAM Rating Services Berhad (RAM)21) CRISIL, Ltd. 56) Rapid Ratings International, Inc.22) Dagong Global Credit Rating Co., Ltd. 57) Rating and Investment Information, Inc. (R&I)23) Demotech, Inc. 58) Realpoint, LLC24) Dominion Bond Rating Service (DBRS) 59) Rus Ratings25) Duff & Phelps de Colombia, S.A., S.C.V 60) Saha Kurumsal Yönetim ve Kredi Derecelendirme Hizmetleri A.Ş26) Ecuability, SA 61) Seoul Credit Rating & Information, Inc.27) Egan-Jones Rating Company 62) Shanghai Credit Information Services Co., Ltd.28) Equilibrium Clasificadora de Riesgo 63) Shanghai Far East Credit Rating Co., Ltd.29) European Rating Agency (ERA) 64) Slovak Rating Agency, a.s. (SRA)30) Feller Rate Clasificadora de Riesgo 65) SME Rating Agency of India Limited (SMERA)31) Fitch Ratings, Ltd. 66) Sociedad Calificadora de Riesgo Centroamericana, S.A.32) Global Credit Rating Co. 67) Standard and Poors (S&P)33) HR Ratings de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. 68) Taiwan Ratings, Corp. (TCR)34) Interfax Rating Agency (IRA) 69) Thai Rating and Information Services Co., Ltd. (TRIS)35) Investment Information and Credit Rating Agency (ICRA) 70) Ratings, Inc.36) Islamic International Rating Agency, B.S.C. (IIRA) 71) TCR Kurumsal Yonetim ve Kredi Derecelendirme Hizmetleri A.S. 72) Veribanc, Inc.Source:
  • 9. WHAT are Credit Rating Agencies?• Rating agencies are intermediaries in capital markets• They collate and evaluate information on the issuer, and disseminate opinions to investors (and other interested parties)• Other intermediaries are banks and insurance companies• Issuers expect reduced cost of funds• Issuers expect access to broader investor pool• Increased role of rating agencies: - Financial disintermediation; bank/ borrower to issuer/ buyer - Regulation
  • 10. Lesson 3:Inter-agencyComparability 10
  • 11. Q) D (F) = D (S&P) = D (M)
  • 12. RATINGS ‘MAPPING’ TABLE Fitch Ratings Moody’s Standard & Poors Mapped Long-term rating Short-term rating Long-term rating Short-term rating Long-term rating Short-term rating internal r a t i n g Investment Grade AAA Aaa AAA iAAA AA+ F1+ Aa1 AA+ iAA+ A-1+ AA Aa2 P1 AA iAA AA- Aa3 AA- iAA- F1+ or F1 A+ A1 A+ A-1 iA+ A F1 A2 P-1 or P-2 A A-1 or A-2 iA A- F1 or F2 A3 A- iA- P-2 A-2 BBB+ F2 Baa1 BBB+ iBBB+ BBB F2 or F3 Baa2 P-2 or P-3 BBB A-2 or A-3 iBBB BBB- F3 Baa3 P-3 BBB- A-3 iBBB- BB+ Ba1 BB+ iBB+ BB B Ba2 BB iBB Speculative Grade B BB- Ba3 BB- iBB- Ranges within B+ B1 B+ iB+ B-1, B-2 and B-3 B B2 B iB B- B3 Not Prime B- iB- CCC+ Caa1 CCC+ iCCC+ C CCC Caa2 CCC iCCC CCC- Caa3 CCC- C iCCC- CC Ca CC iCC C C C iC DDD, DD, D D Moody’s: D D D iDSource: Bloomberg, Fitch, Moody’s and S&P
  • 13. 13
  • 15. RATING PRINCIPLESFitch Ratings, Standard & Poor’s:Probability of default (PD) = First dollar of loss What is the ultimate default risk?Moody’s:Expected loss (EL) = [(PD) X (LGD)] What is the amount of net loss suffered?
  • 16. STATISTICAL : Probability of Default
  • 17. Lesson 4:SUPER SENIORS( or: Intra-agencyComparability) 17
  • 18. Q) SF Bond 1 rated AAA (same CRA)= SF Bond 2 rated AAA (same CRA)?
  • 19. SUPER-SENIOR RATINGSSF Bond 1 SF Bond 2Tranche 1: AAA Tranche 1: AAAAATranche 2: AA+ Tranche 2: AAAATranche 3: A Tranche 3: AAATranche 4: BBB- Tranche 4: AA+Tranche 5: BB Tranche 5: ATranche 6: B+ Tranche 6: BBB-First Loss piece: NR Tranche 7: BB Tranche 8 B+ First Loss piece: NR
  • 20. Lesson 5:Definition of‘Rating’ 20
  • 21. Q) How would you define ‘rating’? A) Benchmark measure B) Benchmark measure for LGD for PD C) Opinion D) Not necessarily based on facts or knowledge
  • 22. RATING DEFINITION• An opinion… * [Financial journalists]• …on the relative ability…• …of an entity to meet financial commitments. *…view not necessarily based on fact or knowledgeRatings are benchmark measures of…• Probability of default (PD)• Expectations of Loss given default (LGD)
  • 23. Lesson 6:Captured Risks 23
  • 24. Q) Which RISKS are captured by credit ratings? A) Credit & Market risk B) Credit, Market & Operational risk C) Credit, Market, Operational, Liquidity & Basis risk D) None of the above
  • 25. RATINGS……can capture: …do NOT capture:Credit risk  Market risk   Liquidity risk   Operational risk only !  Basis risk (IR risk)  …but, even so, are ’hard-wired’…• by Basel II• into banks’ credit rating models• Investment guidelines and Asset management mandates
  • 26. Lesson 7:ConstructiveCriticism 26
  • 27. CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM• Business model: Too slow to react• Assumptions, methodologies & models• Conflict of interest (‘issuer-pays’ model)• Limited capture• Split ratings• Notching of competitor’s ratings• Implied ratings & internal competition• etc.
  • 28. Regional problem GLOBAL IMPACT (Sub-prime mortgages) (SF Bond Tranche Downgrades)200,000 TOTAL Europe US 175,208150,000 111,239100,000 74,150 68,073 64,017 50,000 49,160 50,676 47,284 35,837 30,597 7,981 1,161 2,035 0 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 (Since January 2007 - Source: Bloomberg / RATT function)
  • 29. Lesson 8:Failures 29
  • 30. FAILURES AIG, Bear Stearns, Bradford & Bingley, Enron, Icelandic banks, Lehman Bros., Monolines, Northern Rock, Parmalat, PIIGS, Sub-prime bonds etc.In their own words...Fitch: “… did not foresee the magnitude of the decline…or the dramatic shift in borrower behavior…”Moody’s: “…We did not . . . anticipate the magnitude and speed of the deterioration in mortgage quality or the suddenness of the transition to restrictive lending...”S&P: “…It is now clear that a number of assumptions used in preparing ratings on mortgage-backed securities issued between 2005 and mid-2007 did not work…”Source: US Government Oversight and Reform Committee, Oct 2008
  • 32. OPERATIONAL RISKS• Changing Rating methodologies and assumptions• Time lag of rating actions• Rating model risks• Striking the right balance between non- and over-regulation
  • 33. RISK MITIGANTS• Understanding the meaning & limitations of ratings• Understanding instruments’ risks• Independent analysis• Internal ratings• Disputing rating decisions with the agencies• Awareness that agencies CAN and DO get their ratings wrong (Operational risk scenario)
  • 34. 10:UsingCRAs’analysissensibly 34
  • 35. SENSIBLE USE of CRAs’ Analysis• Fully understand the instrument you are investing in• Understand ratings’ limitations and know how to mitigate rating-related risks (previous slide)• ‘Ignore ratings designators’ (i.e. AAA etc.) and focus on CRAs’ analytical narrative instead• Look out for what is NOT there in the narrative but should e.g. Why are obvious issues missing in the analysis? Why has this bond not been rated by all three CRAs?• Apply common sense and trust your gut feeling
  • 36. Q) Would you now give CRAs more or less credit? B) A) More Less
  • 37. CLOSEThank you very muchfor your attention, contribution and listening today!________________________________________________________________________________CONTACT:+ 44 (0) 79 85 065 |
  • 38. Markus KrebszSubject matter expert : Rating agencies & Securitisation • Freelance Consultant with eighteen years experience in banking & financial institutions - thereof ten years covering rating agencies • Credit rating advisor for the World Bank as part of various large-scale projects involving GSEs of several African nations • Industry expert in credit rating agency as well as Structured finance-related issues and frequent speaker on international conferences • Author and passionate reviewer/editor of several risk workbooks • Frequent contributor to various industry working groups consulting regulators, exchanges and central banksPublications • ‘Securitisation & Structured Finance post Credit Crunch: A Best Practice Deal Lifecycle Guide’, John Wiley & Sons Inc., exp.1Q11 • ‘Investor Requirements for 2011 and beyond: Due diligence and Risk analysis in a post-crisis world’, Euromoney Yearbook chapter • ‘IT in Investment Operations’, Jun 2010 (Senior reviewer), ‘Operational Risk’ , Oct 2009 (Senior reviewer) & ‘Risk in Financial Services’, Aug 2009 (Technical Reviewer) - Workbooks of the Chartered Institute for Securities & Investments (CISI) • ‘Frontiers of Risk management – Chapter 14: Credit rating agencies and the IRB approach’, Euromoney Book, 2007 • Numerous special, research and criteria reports on Fitch Rating’s website as Performance & Rating analyst, Aug 2004 to Oct 2006 • SAP Risk Analyzer Manual (in-house publication, in German), Jan 2002Professional qualifications & affiliations Assignments (Past & current) • Individually Chartered Member of the Chartered • The World Bank Securities and Investment Institute (CISI) • Deutsche Bank • Bachelor of Banking Services and Operations, CCI • Lloyds Banking Group • ‘Train the Trainers’ Certificate • Bank of Scotland Treasury • ‘Banking in Britain’ Certificate • The Royal Bank of Scotland Group • German Banking Certificate (‘Bankkaufmann’) • HypoVereinsbank / Unicredit • Volunteer at and Member of the Professional Risk • Dresdner Bank Manager’s International Association (PRMIA) • Primary insight (Subsidiary of Bear Stearns) • Member of the Global Association of Risk • De Matteo Monness (Subsidiary of Goldman Sachs) Professionals (GARP) • Fitch / • Vista Research (Subsidiary of Standard & Poor’s)
  • 39. APPENDIX: Origin & History Global Rating Agencies The Rating Process Benefits Limitations
  • 40. ORIGIN & HISTORY 1922 – Standard Statistics company1841 – 1st mercantile rating agency  Founded by Louis Tappan 1924 – Fitch Publishing company  Rating merchants’ ability to pay  Taken over by Robert Dun 1933 – Merger: Dun & Bradstreet  Becomes owner of Moody’s in 19621849 – 2nd rating agency established  By John Bradstreet 1941 – Merger: Standard & Poor’s1859 – 1st rating guide published 1966 – Takeover: S&P by McGraw Hill  By Robert Dun’s agency 1975 – Fundamental change1909 – Moody’s founded  Business model  By John Moody  ‘Subscriber-pays’ to ‘Issuer-pays’  ‘Manual of Railroad Securities’ 2007 to 2009 – Global credit crisis1916 – Poor’s Publishing Company  Part blame for market collapse  Publishes its first ratings guide  New rating agency regulation
  • 41. WHO PROVIDES RATINGS?• More than 2,400 institutions worldwide• Ratings and analysis track debt covering more than: • 100 sovereign nations • 11,000 company issuers • 25,000 public finance issuers • 70,000 structured finance obligations• Employs more than 2,400 people worldwide, ~1,000 analysts.• Rates 170,000 corporate, government and structured finance
  • 42. • 6,300 employees• Located in 21 countries and markets• Has played a leading role for more than 90 years• Ratings on US$ 34 trillion of debt issued in 100+ countries• Issuers and debt obligations of corporations, states and municipalities, financial institutions, insurance companies and sovereign governments• Ratings, indices, equity research, risk solutions  S&P U.S. Indices  S&P/Citigroup Global Equity Indices  S&P Emerging Market Indices  S&P Alternative or
  • 43. • Dual-headquartered in NY & London• 90 countries 1,500 employees  3,100 financial institutions  1,600 banks  1,400 insurance companies.  1,200 corporates, 89 sovereigns, 45,000 municipal transactions.  8,600 structured finance transactions under surveillance, including 4000 RMBS pools, 440 CMBS, 1600 ABS, and 600 CDOs.  1200 European & 200 Asian structured finance
  • 44. RATINGS SCOPEPublicly ratedPrivately ratedCredit assessmentMarket-Implied ratings (CDS, Equity, Spread, Price etc.)
  • 45. RATING ACTIONSRating SuffixDEAL STAGE RATING WATCH (1-6 months)• Preliminary • Positive• Final • Negative• Paid in Full (PIF) / • Evolving / Uncertain RedemptionINDICATORS OUTLOOK (1-2 years)• Upgrade, Downgrade • Positive• Affirmation / Confirmation • Negative• Withdrawn • Stable
  • 46. THE RATING PROCESS: A detailed view (Part 1) Source: Moody’ s, S&P, Fitch Ratings
  • 47. THE RATING PROCESS: A detailed view (Part 2) Source: Moody’ s, S&P, Fitch Ratings
  • 48. BENEFITSTo Investors To the company (issuer)• Safety to investments • Easier to raise funding• Recognition of Risk & • Reduced cost of borrowing Returns • Reduced cost of public• Freedom of investment issuance (bonds) decisions • Ratings help increase image• Wider choice of & reputation investments • Facilitation of growth• Dependable credibility of • Access to wider investor issuer base• Easy understanding of • Recognition of relatively investment proposals unknown companies• Continuous monitoring (Surveillance)
  • 49. LIMITATIONS• Non-disclosure of significant information• Static study of present and past historic data at one particular point in time• Rating is no certificate of soundness and users of ratings should form an independent view of the meaning of the particular rating• Rating may be biased due to certain views of the lead analysts• Rating under unfavourable conditions which may not always be representative of the true image of the company• Differences in rating grades: split ratings between different rating agencies which may confuse investors
  • 50. TIMELY ACTIONS and DEFERRALTimeliness of Rating changes Bond maturity profile • Process stages to reach • Legal final vs. expected rating decisions maturity • Detection of bond- vs. • Life-time ratings (40+ years) asset class-specific • Timely payment of interest & and/or systemic issues ultimate payment of principal31 July 07 20 Aug 07 31 Aug 07 9 Oct 07 16 Oct 07 25 Oct 07Cut-off date CRA analyst Proposal: RWN CRA Analyst Proposal: DG Indiv. or Asset-class? Bulk rating actions & Report format & frequency, Analyst’s experience, Models, Quorum ... Criteria 15 Aug 07 27 Aug 07 25 Sept 07 12 Oct 07 23 Oct 07 You get Distribution st 1 Analysis result st 1 Committee nd 2 Analysis result nd 2 Committee the idea... Changes
  • 51. GLOBAL SF BOND TRANCHE DOWNGRADES200,000 TOTAL S&P Moodys Fitch 176,046150,000 111,605100,000 74,674 68,372 64,186 50,000 49,594 50,968 47,510 36,129 30,749 7,992 1,166 2,042 0 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 (Since January 2007 - Source: Bloomberg / RATT function)